Hillary Clinton’s four year record in the State Department often collapses under scrutiny—as Secretary of State, Clinton backed regime change and caused political instability in countries such as Honduras, Haiti, and Libya.
One of the strongest aspects of Clinton’s state records lies with her contribution to the foundations of the Iran nuclear deal; as the Wall Street Journal detailed in September 2015, “Hillary Clinton, in her last months as secretary of state, helped open the door to a dramatic shift in U.S. policy toward Iran…[Clinton] and her top aide, Mr. Sullivan, were key players in the Iran deal.”
The Iran deal was crucial in preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and Clinton has often touted her involvement in the final result.
However, new behind-the-scenes details provided by the New York Times reveal that Clinton was actually against negotiating with Iranians and urged new sanctions in lieu of diplomatic policy, once again demonstrating her hawkish nature.
According to the Times, while Secretary of State John Kerry wanted an open dialogue and negotiations with Iranian leadership, Clinton remained skeptical and distrusting.
Instead, she pushed for increased sanctions to put pressure on Iran, which President Obama feared would undo diplomatic efforts: “After she left the State Department, Mrs. Clinton diverged from Mr. Obama on a central tactical question: whether to impose harsh new sanctions on the Iranians after they elected Hassan Rouhan.”
This divergence in diplomacy from Obama and Kerry represents the general war-friendly behavior Clinton has come under criticism for, whether it be her vote for the Iraq war, or her decisions to implement regime change.
The Huffington Post notes that, “Her allies suggest that her willingness to ramp up the pressure against Iran wouldn’t have precluded her from reaching an agreement with the long-time U.S. adversary — and actually might have pressured the Iranians to offer more concessions.”
However, this fits a larger pattern of behavior we have come to witness with Clinton and does not offer comfort for those who worry about her approach to foreign policy as a potential future Commander in Chief.
Banner Image Credit: Reuters